If Canon sacrificed IS in the new 24-70 to make it what it is, (pretty insane) then, -- My God, can you imagine the IQ of a NON-IS 70-200?? Wow, you would have to print on metal only, the images would shread paper...

When my Sigma 100-300 f4 died and was too old to repair, I replaced it with the Canon 70-200 2.8 (non IS) a little less than a year ago. It is my only telephoto, often used with 1.4 extender, and it is fantastic. There is no way I could have afforded the IS2, so if this lens was not available they would have driven me to Tamron. I am sure there are people like me whose business they will lose by discontinuing this lens, but I guess there are not enough of us to justify continued production.

I would be surprised if they came out with a new version, as the price would be so much higher (based on their other L upgrades) that no one would buy it - the IS2 would be just a few hundred bucks more so people would upgrade to that. The marketers at Tamron and Sigma must be jumping with joy at this decision!

paul13walnut5

Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.

Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make - so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.

Let them upscale it all because it's going into an "L" lens. So they spend TWENTY times more on the IS for the "L" lens.

And then price the L's IS at $200 more than the non IS version.

Yeah, ok, but you assume that there is no difference in the elements within the IS group, are the IS elements not larger than the non IS, so as to permit a full image circle even with a moved group? Would these larger elements not require to be sharp accross the whole field as they potentially could be used much closer to the edge once shifted in an IS movement? Are these elements not made of better quality glass than the £75 lenses? Would there not be a significant R&D spend to recoup from the L lenses, which may sell in the thousands rather than the £75 kit lenses that sell in their 100's of thousands, if not millions?

I'm just asking because if it was as simple as bolting an IS motor on, I'm sure Canon would have thought of that already.

Overall, I like the decision. BUT, and it's a big BUT - the IS tech should be included for no more than $200 extra.

Canon puts IS into a kit lenses that might cost them $75 to make - so let's pretend the IS stuff in there costs canon $10.

Let them upscale it all because it's going into an "L" lens. So they spend TWENTY times more on the IS for the "L" lens.

And then price the L's IS at $200 more than the non IS version.

Yeah, ok, but you assume that there is no difference in the elements within the IS group, are the IS elements not larger than the non IS, so as to permit a full image circle even with a moved group? Would these larger elements not require to be sharp accross the whole field as they potentially could be used much closer to the edge once shifted in an IS movement? Are these elements not made of better quality glass than the £75 lenses? Would there not be a significant R&D spend to recoup from the L lenses, which may sell in the thousands rather than the £75 kit lenses that sell in their 100's of thousands, if not millions?

I'm just asking because if it was as simple as bolting an IS motor on, I'm sure Canon would have thought of that already.

I think that if all you did was bolt on a motor, you would decrease the iq of the lens....

I'm one of the people, or maybe the only one, who had their 2.8 non IS replaced with a IS II model back in April. Here's how it went down... As a CPS member I decided I'd take advantage of the repair discount and clean and check coupons and sent in a couple things. My 70-200 f2.8 had developed a slight haze after 17 years of use in some harsh conditions...this was a lens I used shooting snowboarding for a few years so not surprised that it took more abuse than any of my current gear. Canon gave me a reasonable quote of about $250, but said it would be a few days to get parts so since I'm a CPS member they sent me a loaner 2.8IS v1 to cover me on my shoot. A few days later they called and told me it was more damage and it would be $350, then the next day called and said it couldn't be repaired. I was told that I could get a replacement lens instead for the same cost as repair, which was fine by me. I was a little surprised though that they then sent me a 70-200 f2.8 IS II, happily surprised of course since it's a wonderful lens and one that I was hoping to buy some day after selling my repaired 2.8 nonIS.Maybe this was a one off event, maybe this is SOP now, maybe it's just a perk of CPS and shooting Canon for 20 years, but I'm a very happy customer and will stick with Canon and CPS for the foreseeable future.